I'll repeat someone else's point that Clinton isn't "first woman ever to win a [US] presidential primary." That honor goes to Shirley Chisholm, who won the New Jersey primary in 1972.

So the purpose is to argue that the systam used is a bad one? It doesn't seem to me that anything except that one line has any connection to that.

So you are anti-proportional representation? How weird. Were you anti-proportional representation before this campaign? I've always thought that proportional representation was a much better system for pretty much any election than first past the post.

The system used in the US in the GE is possibly one of the worst systems possible (first past the post in lots of little chunks). It doesn't do a good job of matching the popular vote, it makes it unnecessary to campaign except in a few swing states, I can't see anything to recommend it.

The purpose of the primaries is not to serve as a dry run for the general election (since most primaries are restricted to either Dems or Dems and Independents, it doesn't work for that). It is supposed to determine who most Democratic voters want to have as the Democratic nominee. Proportional representation is a better system for this than first past the post by state would be.

As to the question of what would get my vote for Clinton in the Oregon primary, and whether that represents me unforgivably telling a female politician what to do, no it does not. I'm a voter, I'm expressing what would get my vote. That is something we all are free to do, and it is completely appropriate.

what kind of baud rate do you get with a hand cranked modem?

Clinton won the nomination in 92 and 96.  His vice president won the nomination in 2000.  

they never complained about the rules when they won - only now do they whine, like sore losers.

hell, just a few months ago, Mark Penn was bragging that Hillary would have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday.  They loved the rules when she was inevitable.

PR means that every vote counts, which is almost as important as counting every vote.

If you, or Hillary, or anyone in her campaign, or any of her supporters had been making this argument 5 months ago, then it could be taken seriously. At this point, its just meaningless complaining. Even after super Tuesday, no one was making this argument.  It didn't start until after it became clear that Hillary was going to lose the pledged delegate battle.

Its the same thing with the pledged delegates vs. popular vote.  Up until it became obvious Hillary was going to lose among pledged delegates, the Clinton campaign was constantly talking about how this was all about delegates.  Then it became about popular vote, then it became about popular vote including MI and FL, then it became about general election matchups only in Florida and Ohio.  

After proposing 5 or 6 different metrics, its hard to take the complaining seriously.

I have no idea why you just dragged that reeking corpse into here.

It makes perfect sense, because the electoral college actually does a relatively bad job of representing the interest of the people (remember 2000?). It's really good (and designed that way) at representing the interests of the states (e.g HUGE farm subsides 'nice pander to rural plains states', but no serious effort to raise gas standards). The Democratic system on the other hand does a great job of weighing the varied interests of our diverse constituency. That's why different candidates perform better in different states. It strikes a nice balance I think... even the interest of the party establishment is weighed in the form of super delegates (the only change I would make is getting rid of DNC supers... only have elected Dems as supers, that way all the supers would still be accountable to the voters).

Don't be so sure your candidate would have benefited from a winner-take all type of election... If it had been one, Obama would have certainly run his campaign differently, and might have still come out ahead.

"rewards hard work in every district in every state"  this is a nice sentiment, but it is about winning after all - non?

Yes, winning delegates in every district. It's a great system to represent the interests at the local level. Hillary's voters in Illinois matter because they help to bring the delegate margin down for her... in a winner-take-all election Hillary wouldn't have bothered having a field office in IL, unless polling showed she had a shot at winning it.

and the media is not only inappropriate - but disgraceful.

The media is just reflecting the reality of the race... we discussed this before, but they did the same thing to Jerry Brown, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean, Mike Huckabee, John Edwards in 04. Etc. etc.

It's not disgusting, they're just being realist.

Because EVERY state should matter, not just "swing states," primary or no.

but alas my friend, if it was winner-take-all HRC would have won it on super tuesday.

and their right (the supers) to listen to him.  And the rules say they COULD overturn the pledged delegate vote and give the nomination to Obama in that case.  

But they wouldn't.  In fact, the prospect of such a thing would be so loathsome that many figures in the Party would work to avoid it happening.  They would try to persuade Obama to get out, possibly by dangling some carrots in front of him.  They would try to get a majority of pledged and supers for Hillary so that she would have six months to campaign against McCain rather than four months defending herself against Obama and two fighting against McCain.

You're right about the rules, but I'm right about how the Party and the superdelegates would respond, and it would not be different.  If anything, it would be much more harsh and heavy-handed in its attempt to terminate Obama's campaign because Hillary have a long history of connections with Party insiders to call upon.

Remember what Hillary said.  The campaign will be over on Super Tuesday.  If she had swept those states, I think the calls for Obama to withdraw would have come far earlier than they did for Hillary.

Of course it's "within her rights" to continue --- but just because that's true, does NOT mean it's the wisest course for the Democratic Party!

It's not "fear".  It's strategy.

to start organizing to replace her when she stands for re-election too.